apsych c13--social psychology
social influence theory: people feel and act because of the way that others affect them
attribution theory
attribution theory: tries to explain how people determine the cause of what they observe
example: Robert tells you that he did well at his track meet.
person attribution—you assume something about a person that creates the effect (Robert must be fast!)
situation attribution—you assume the situation causes the effect (There was no one else at the track meet).
unstable attribution vs. stable attribution—effect is determined by a consistent or inconsistent cause.
example: Charley has always been fast—person-stable attribution
consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus are three things that determine what information we look at
consistency: how similarly the individual acts in the same situation over time. used for decide if an attribution is stable or unstable (robert did well at this meet, but he wasn’t good last year…unstable)
distinctiveness: how similar this situation is to others
consensus: how others in the same situation response. helps us determine if something is a person or situation attribution (robert did well, but so did everyone else…easy meet…situation)
self-fulfilling prophecy: we often treat people like how we think they will act before we even know them, causing differences in our interactions
attributional biases
fundamental attributional error: people look at dispositional factors and underestimate the role of situational variables
Jenny has a class with you for the first time and falls asleep while you are talking to her in class. You would assume Jenny is just unfriendly. Perhaps Jenny did not sleep the night before because she was studying.
happens more in collectivist cultures (like Japan) than individualistic cultures (America)
actor-observer bias: we say our OWN behavior depends on a situation because we know ourselves too well
false-consensus effect: we sometimes think more people agree with us than they actually do
Emily suggests Harry Potter for her book club because she thinks everyone will want to read it.
self-serving bias: taking more credit for good outcomes (winning a game) than bad ones (losing a game)
just-world phenomenon: our ideas that bad things happen to bad people
attitude formation and change
attitude: set of beliefs and feelings
mere exposure effect: we will come to like something the more we experience it
elaboration likelihood model: persuasive messages can be processed through either the central route (deeply processing the content of the message. why should i buy THIS bag in particular) or the peripheral route (everything else in the message, including who communicates it).
this all applies to advertising BTW
attractive/famous/experts are best communicators
cognitive dissonance theory—when our attitudes and our behaviors are different, we can often experience unpleasant mental tension
compliance strategies
people want their friends to comply with them!
foot-in-the-door technique—if you can get people to agree to a small request, they will become more likely to agree to a follow-up request that is larger
door-in-the-face technique—after people refuse a large request, they are more likely to say yes to a smaller one
social reciprocity norm—when someone does something nice for you, you want to pay it forward
social responsibility norm—we should help make our world a better place
by contrast, social traps are situations in which the betterment of the world requires us all to help but people feel like their contributions are too small and do their own thing (everyone should recycle, but we feel like we don’t play a huge role)
stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination
chart on pg. 129
stereotypes vs. prejudice vs. discrimination
implicit attitude: something that may influence someone’s behavior without their being aware of it
ethnocentrism==opposite to multiculturalism
out-group homogeneity bias—people see members of their own group as more diverse than members of other groups
in-group bias—we have a preference for members of our own group
contact theory
contact between two hostile groups with prejudice against each other will reduce animosity IF the groups work toward a goal (superordinate goal) that benefits them all
aggression and antisocial behavior
instrumental aggression: being aggressive to get something
hostile aggression: being aggressive for an unknown reason
prosocial behavior—factors that make people more likely to help one another
attraction
we will like people who like us, attractive people are more likeable, self-disclosure is a process where we share stuff with each other
the psychology of social situations
social facilitation—being in the presence of others makes us try harder. ex: emily runs fast at her track meet because she wants other people to think she is fast.
upward vs. downward social comparison: comparing ourselves to people who are either better or worse than us
relative deprivation theory—people are less satisfied with their lives if they engage in lots of upward social comparison
normative social influence: people conforming for social reasons. informational social influence: people think a group knows best. ex: emily sits outside with a bunch of her friends because they tell her that there is lots of sunlight.
obedience studies like the milgram experiment (shocks we talked about in theology) test how willing people are to comply with what another wants
bystander effect: more people who witness an emergency, the less likely a person is to help
pg. 132 for chart
group dynamics
social loafing: we tend to not put in as much effort when acting as part of a group as we would solo. ex: emily works in a group project and does nothing because her partner wants to do all the work.
group polarization: groups make more extreme decisions than members would on their own
groupthink: tendency for some groups to make bad decisions. occurs when group members suppress opinions about ideas supported by the group, resulting in deindividuation